Yesterday someone sent me news that the Humanists are now advertising their religion through online videos. As you can see in this example, they take a segment of scripture from the Bible (1 Timothy 2:11-12), ridicule it for being out of touch with today’s society, and then present what is obviously a more favorable viewpoint that men and women are equals.

At first blush, many people who have not studied the Bible, the customs of the Jews, or sought an understanding of the Godly and differing roles of men and women as parents, may be turned away from scripture and have a positive impression toward humanism. I don’t consider myself an expert on Biblical traditions and customs, but I have studied the Bible enough to know that when Paul wrote letters to the various churches, they were tuned into specific issues they were dealing with. He certainly had more to say on this issue than in one letter to Timothy, which may not even be exactly what he originally recorded since scribes weren’t perfect in their transcribing of the ancient records.

The role of a husband has always been to preside in righteousness over his household. God created woman as an “help-meet” (Gen. 2:18) for man and told the man to cleave to his wife and be of one flesh (Gen. 2:24), clearly implying a special relationship. Woman was created from man’s side to show that she is part of man and co-equal in her unique role. She was not created from a bone from his head or foot showing her above or below man. Paul clearly understood this and wrote much in Ephesians 5 about this. In this set of writings Paul calls upon wives to submit themselves to their husbands and then admonishes the husbands to love their wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. He tells men to love their wives even as they love themselves. What woman, properly treated by a righteous man who loves her as he loves himself and serves her as Christ served the church and even died for it, wouldn’t feel submissive to the righteous requests of such a man and seek to honor him in their household?

Peter talks about this as well in 1 Peter 3 where he says women should be in subjection to their husbands and serve them that they may be converted and give honor to the wife as they would a “weaker vessel” or one who deserves protection, in order that they may be “heirs together of the grace of life.”

The humanists would turn us against God’s word in a perversion of equality (dare I say democracy? :)). Men and women do indeed have different roles, but are partners in life and need to serve each other. The role of a husband is to preside in righteousness and work by the sweat of his brow to take care of his family, and the role of a wife is to be an help-meet, mother, nurturer, and true companion that the husband relies on for her wisdom and compassion.

Here is one very interesting take on the humanist religion. Even the humanists acknowledge if the courts were consistent in their application of the “religion test” it would be the end of Horace Mann’s public education plan (and maybe the return to what our Founding Fathers intended for public education). http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html

3 Responses to “Humanists Proselyting”

Humanists are often, if not always, atheist. They smirk at the mention of God. They demand conformity to “social and biological egalitarianism.” In other words, “humanism” is Communist ideology in disguise. Same with “progressivism” that consider homosexual/transgendered equal, by insisting that homosexual marriage should be permissible to make it “equatable” and defend homosexual/transgendered as “normal human beings who are just like you, except sexual orientation, we plead tolerance.”

Such embrace of perversion (liberalism) by bad and immoral values will mean a confused, degraded, morally decayed society, especially for children and youth being reared in heterosexual household, informed by morally corrupt influences such as television programming, public education, and peer pressure.

These ideas have always existed. It is interesting to note that people have always worked very hard to justify unjustifiable behavior. It is the human tendency to try to not change incorrect behavior and insist that everyone else not make them change. People want to take the easy road. If someone is weak in an area, they want everyone else to be tolerant.

Well, tolerance is not about allowing undesirable behavior. Tolerance is about allowing time for others to change the things they are working on.

Isn’t it ironic that the “humanists” use the Biblical ideal of “tolerance” as a whipping post for those who believe in the Bible?

It is important to note that woman was the “apex” or “pinnacle” of God’s creation. She was created last of all His creations on this earth; not as a afterthought. To me this is an extremely important way to look at what we are as humans and especially how cherished a woman should be by ALL men and society.

I agree with Aaron that humanists are often atheists (or agnostic) and are trying to circumvent traditional principles and values that are the of a Judeo-Christian core by claiming themselves as religious, while being the sheep in wolf’s clothing. These arrogant philosophies of man have no comparison to the knowledge of God (which is truth) and these progressive ideals have no moral code that is of true value. It is based on the ideas of man. Humanists, evolutionists, progressives, Marxists, pragmatists, objectives, and many others with similar philosophies base their ideas on some truth but spin and twist it through pseudo-intellectualism and the removal of God.

When I want truth… I turn to Him. I research as many sides of an argument I can find and then I turn to Him again. This is how I learn the TRUTH. By the removal of God these people are able to place themselves in intellectual superiority (natural selection) and thus tell the rest of us what is moral and right based on what suits them (ruling class.)

As cea7of9 says, “These ideas have always existed.” Those of us who have faith on God… Our ideas have always existed as well and we don’t need to have long-winded, lengthy articles in attempt to prove what we believe. We know the truth and we know that ultimately the individual has to find the truth for themselves. When I read or see these people I find myself thinking, “Who are you trying to convince… Me or yourself?”